HOF by different maps also?

[theimmortal1]

Is there a way to organize the scores by the acual map? I find getting high scores on say Islands is much harder than Pangea, so I'd like to be able to compare against others against the same map.

 

[theimmortal1]

oops I know islands isn't HOF elgible. I just picked that at random. My question still stands.

 

[playshogi]

I suppose that's possible, but then someone like me is sure to pipe up and request organizing the scores by civ used. It's easy to get fast conquest with Rome, but how fast can you do it with Aztec?

 

[dutchfire]

Aztec can be done earlier, because Jags are cheaper than Preatorians, all you need is a duel map, and some luck

 

[dwarrior]

i think that would be too many tables.....

 

[superslug]

i think that would be too many tables.....

Exactly....

 

[playshogi]

Lots of tables, but then you'd get lots of variety in submissions, instead of people trying to get that elusive 3835BC conquest/duel with Inca (just 3 more slots are open, better hurry!), just how much faster is Monty over JC? We don't know and all the Inca submissions taking up space means no one will ever try. Not to mention how fast is Inca on a water map!

 

[fret]

I just put that down to the nature of the HOF. Almost every slot is susceptible to the problem you highlight, only that one is more apparant becuase the game is very quick, and therefore has recieved a substantial number of submissions already.

With a huge amount of involvement and time most tables would be the same as the Dual/Conquest ones, with clear pre-requisites necessary to gain a position, because whichever Civ or map type used will be the only way of competiting with the top scores in that catagory. Civ 3 Mayan Milk et al...

It would be good if a way could be found around this, but I cant think of one that wouldnt involve introducing a mind boggling array of new tables.

 

[Kalleyao]

If there'll be diferent maps wy not have different tables for leaders, civs, climate, sea level etc. too? Then you can compare more stuff.

 

[dutchfire]

In the Civ 4 in-game HoF you can check for all these things right? (Civ, level, victory etc.) So wouldn't it be possible to do the same for the CFC HoF?

 

[Big_Ben]

While those tables would be nice, you guys have to think about it from a developers perspective. More selections means more queries in the database and also more fields/tables in the database as well. The added size means added server space and greater use of bandwidth. This translates to MORE MONEY. It cost money to host the HOF and the civfanatics people are very generous in allotting us space to use. Using more space will cost more. Also, the more queries you have to a database the more likely there will be errors and bugs that need to be worked out.

You must also consider the time and effort the HOF staff puts into this already. In asking them to add more tables that means you are asking them to give up more of their free time to develop and keep updating various tables. I am very thankful for the work they have already done, I don't need to ask them to give up more of their lives to set up 1000 more tables.

I do believe there are 10800 possible spots on the HOF right now (I could have left out some though). If you simply add maps as a choice then that number jumps to 108,000. If you Then add leaders as a choice that number jumps to 2.8 million different positions on the HOF tables. I myself do not think that there will ever be 2.8 million submissions to the HOF, much less 2.8 million unique places filled on the tables.

Right now there are people trying for almost every position on the tables. If you have 2.8 million spots, there will usually be only 1-2 people trying for a single spot. That just isn't competitive if you ask me.

 

[Kalleyao]

You're right I think the current hof is good! I was: ...

 

[theimmortal1]

The problem is that for many of the games you are restricted to certain maps. Theres no way you can play continents and expect to win a conquest or possibly even a domination victory and end up on the tables. And it would show a much more well rounded game to see who gets the fastest continents conquest.

 

[superslug]

The problem is that for many of the games you are restricted to certain maps. Theres no way you can play continents and expect to win a conquest or possibly even a domination victory and end up on the tables. And it would show a much more well rounded game to see who gets the fastest continents conquest.

Now that might make for an interesting Gauntlet...

 

[Big_Ben]

Didn't we already do that? I know we did archipelago but I thought we did islands as well? I dunno.

And superslug is right, the gauntlets do expand the realm of what maps and civs will be played for certain victories. What about a diety conquest, ancient age, continents high sea level, opps: HC, Mansa, Monte, JC, Khans. All have relatively strong early UU and it would result in you having to out tech them before you war (atleast I think it would).

 

[azzaman333]

The problem is that for many of the games you are restricted to certain maps. Theres no way you can play continents and expect to win a conquest or possibly even a domination victory and end up on the tables. And it would show a much more well rounded game to see who gets the fastest continents conquest.

Ah, but you can end up on the tables. I rarely play with "optimal" settings, but aim for the emptier tables to get my victories. Thus i can be in the HoF, and play on a variety of interesting maps.